Whether a snow removal company owes a duty of care to third parties who use the premises after the snow has been removed.

No. A contracting company owes no duty of care to third parties unless: (1) the contracting party has performed negligently and launched a force or instrument of harm, (2) the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party, or (3) the contracting party has entirely displaced the other contracting party's duty to safely maintain the premises.

Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant when she slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by her employer, Miltope Corporation. Defendant, Melville Snow Contractors, had contracted with Miltope to plow and remove snow from the premises. Plaintiff alleged that Melville had created the icy condition in the parking lot by negligently removing snow. Melville moved for summary judgment on the grounds that no duty was owed to the Plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division held that Melville owed Plaintiff no duty of care, and that Plaintiff's allegation that Melville created or exacerbated the hazardous condition did not provide a basis for liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, but on different grounds.

The Court of Appeals first turned to the question of whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party. Under decisional law, a contractual obligation alone will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party. The Court noted, however, that under some circumstances, a party who enters into a contract thereby assumes a duty of care to certain persons outside the contract (see Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579 at 586 (1994)). The Court cited three cases (Moch, Eaves Brooks and Palka) that create exceptions to the rule that no duty of care is owed to third parties. According to the cited cases, a contracting company owes no duty of care to third parties unless: (1) the contracting party has performed negligently and launched a force or instrument of harm (Moch), (2) the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party (Eaves Brooks), or (3) the contracting party has entirely displaced the other contracting party's duty to safely maintain the premises (Palka). With these exceptions in mind, the Court found that Plaintiff's claim failed as a matter of law. Plaintiff relied mainly on Palka, but the Court found that the contract between Miltope and Melville was not the type of contractual undertaking that leads to comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance by the contracting party as required by Palka, because Miltope at all times retained its landowner's duty to inspect and safely maintain the premises. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiff's fall on the ice was not caused by Melville's having launched a force or instrument of harm. Finally, the Court noted that Plaintiff failed to allege detrimental reliance on Melville's continued performance of its contractual obligations. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and dismissed the complaint.